On Tue, Nov 30, 1999 at 11:33:41PM -0800, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> liblockdev seems like a really good idea, which we're considering
> adding to LSB (although the library function names may get changed
> along the way so they all have the same prefix).
lockdev_1.0.0_i386.changes just
liblockdev seems like a really good idea, which we're considering
adding to LSB (although the library function names may get changed
along the way so they all have the same prefix).
Is there a reason that no Debian packages are using it?
Package: liblockdev0g
Version: 0.11.1
Archite
Christian Schwarz wrote:
>
> In the last policy weekly (#4), I asked for comments if we should
> make it policy that every package has to use liblockdev to lock
> devices. Noone objected so far.
>
> So, is liblockdev ready for a wide use or are there any (hidden)
> probl
Hello everybody!
Can someone (perhaps Fabrizio?) comment on the status of liblockdev
please?
In the last policy weekly (#4), I asked for comments if we should make it
policy that every package has to use liblockdev to lock devices. Noone
objected so far.
So, is liblockdev ready for a wide
4 matches
Mail list logo